That’s because most teams are doing engineering wrong.
The handover to a peer for review is a falsehood. PRs were designed for open source projects to gate keep public contributors.
Teams should be doing trunk-based development, group/mob programming and one piece flow.
Speed is only one measure and AI is pushing this further to an extreme with the volume of change and more code.
The quality aspect is missing here.
Speed without quality is a fallacy and it will haunt us.
Don’t focus on speed alone, and the need to always be busy and picking up the next item - focus on quality and throughput keeping work in progress to a minimum (1). Deliver meaningful reasoned changed as a team, together.
I've seen speed without quality in a single founder shop where they piled up tech debt so high, velocity for anything was glacial and they still wouldn't stop to refactor or clean up.
The best balance of individual initiative-velocity vs. peer review culture I've seen was at Facebook.
ADRs but give ownership to the team. They should sit in the repo most relevant, but a central repo called ADRs have issue templates and a readme which links off to all the repos and their ADRs - ADRs can not be approved and the issue closed until all the docs are in place. Everyone can see the open ADRs in the main repo and see issue and comment on them. Accountability is there if an assigned issue is open for days/weeks etc.
GitHub issues templates are perfect for ADR templates. All Hands for engineering is a great place to mention them and for teams to comment on the decision and outcomes.
Please don’t forget that some AI generated posts are helpful for those of us with disabilities who can hope to keep an online presence via a pos dictated to an agent, or need help formulating sentences.
By focusing or restricting human only use you risk dehumanising those he need technological support.
What you're describing is legit. I think the solution here is to understand that the rules are never fully specified, and not all-or-nothing. At such a general level of abstraction, it can't be.
Thoughts with the people who use AI to help construct their thoughts because their cognitive decline impacts the ability to construct words and sentences, but still enjoying the production of content, blogging and th indieweb.
These blanket binary takes are tiresome. There is nuance and rough edges.
You can pay to unlock advanced features and keep them and any new features added in a year, after that any new features are paywalled for another unlock, and another +12 months, perpetually.
In April 2025, Probely announced that the Security Headers API will discontinued in April 2026. As far as we know, the free website service will remain available for the foreseeable future.
If you were using it for anything below, you now need an alternative:
CI/CD checks
Automated estate scanning
Compliance evidence
Repeated audits without manual effort
That’s why I am really excited to announce that alongside our existing services, we’ve released an endpoint to serve as a replacement for the Security Headers API.
The handover to a peer for review is a falsehood. PRs were designed for open source projects to gate keep public contributors.
Teams should be doing trunk-based development, group/mob programming and one piece flow.
Speed is only one measure and AI is pushing this further to an extreme with the volume of change and more code.
The quality aspect is missing here.
Speed without quality is a fallacy and it will haunt us.
Don’t focus on speed alone, and the need to always be busy and picking up the next item - focus on quality and throughput keeping work in progress to a minimum (1). Deliver meaningful reasoned changed as a team, together.